Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 201 (1.80 seconds)
Documents citing Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi vs Syndicate Bank Head Office Manipal And ... on 30 April, 1991

Syndicate Bank vs R.G. Bhide on 10 March, 2003

In Nagaraj Shivrao Karjagi v. Syndicate Bank Head Office, Manipal (supra), the petitioner therein was a manager of the Syndicate Bank at East Patel Nagar branch at New Delhi. In the year 1983, on certain charges of misconduct a regular departmental enquiry was held against him and the disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report and affording an opportunity to the petitioner passed on order dated October 7, 1987, imposing on the petitioner the penalty of compulsory retirement. The petitioner appealed to the general manager challenging the punishment. On August 27, 1988, the general manager dismissed the appeal concurring with the findings recorded and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner thereupon moved the Bombay High Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court also dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner therefore carried the matter to the Apex Court. It was the contention of the petitioner before the Apex Court that he had been complaining throughout that the punishing authorities did not apply their mind and did not exercise their power in considering the merits of the case independently and have in fact imposed on him the penalty of compulsory retirement in strict obedience of the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission which has been made binding on them by the direction dated July 21, 1984 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division). In other words, it was the contention of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority blindly followed the advice given by the Central Vigilance Commission without regard to the merits of the matter and contrary to the statutory regulations governing the departmental inquiries. In that case, admittedly, the Central Vigilance Commission had recommended punishment of compulsory retirement. The bank's management after receipt of the advice, made two representations; one in 1986 and another in 1987 to the Central Vigilance Commission for taking a lenient view of the matter and to impose lesser punishment on the petitioner therein and those representations were not accepted by the Central Vigilance Commission.
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - K Ramanna - Full Document

Yogesh Ochhavlal Shah vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 October, 2006

27. The Apex Court in Karjagi's case had reiterated that UPSC advice is advisory, not binding and that UPSC does not act as Appellate Authority of D.A./E.O. The advice is not binding. It further held that no third party either the Government or CVC can advice the Disciplinary Authority on how the exercise its quasi-judicial power. It struck down the circulars issued by Ministry of Finance and Syndicate Bank.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mahendra Doshi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 April, 2004

9. The applicant in case of N.S. Karjagi v. Syndicate Bank, (supra) was challenging his order of compulsory retirement. The case of the applicant was that the said order had been issued pursuant to advice of CVC in terms of Department of Economic Affairs letter dated 21.7.1984 and circulars dated 27.7.84 & 8.9.86 of the Syndicate Bank Headquarters. The letter dated 21.9.84 had provided that advise of CVC should not be modified except with the prior confidence of the Commission and this Ministry. The July, 1984 letter of the Syndicate Bank had forwarded this letter of the Union Government for strict compliance. The subsequent letter of September, 1986 provided that in case of disagreement with such advice the matter shall be referred back to the Chief Vigilance Officer who will tender advice again on reconsideration and if the authorities concerned is still not inclined to accept that order the matter shall be brought to the notice of the CMD and his decision thereon shall be final. The Apex Court in para 19 of its judgment held:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Cholpadi Jagannath Kamath vs P.S.V. Mallya And 3 Ors. on 23 February, 2006

27. As against the aforesaid pleadings made before the Court on behalf of the petitioner, the case of the respondent was that the charges are of very serious nature and penalty imposed on the petitioner is just and proper and it cannot be interfered with while exercising power under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India. It is also found from the record that the petitioner has not availed of any alternative remedy by preferring any appeal. It is, therefore, not open for the petitioner to raise all these issues before the Court and that too after reserving the right to file substantive appeal or petition at the later point of time. Before the Court examined this submission, the Court is of the view that it is true that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is based on the recommendations made by the Central Vigilance Commission and to that extent reliance placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi (Supra) certainly renders some assistance to the petitioner. The only question which is to be examined is as to whether the correspondence which has been produced before the Court would reveal that at the dictation of the Central Vigilance Commission order of removal was passed or after considering the recommendations, charges levelled against the petitioner and the other relevant aspects, the order was passed by the disciplinary authority. From the various details and particulars it is found that 34 charges were levelled against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer has considered evidence and explanations minutely and thereafter has given his report. The disciplinary authority has gone through this report and made consultation with Central Vigilance Commission. The recommendations were not blindly accepted nor the same were implemented forthwith. Though certain correspondence produced before the Court was confidential and was of 1987 it was produced before the Court by the petitioner at the belated stage i.e, in 2005 alongwith the affidavit-in-rejoinder. The source of document has not been disclosed by the petitioner, nor the same was denied by the disciplinary authority. However, the contents of the correspondence were interpreted by both the parties in their own way. Streneous efforts were made on behalf of the respondents that the recommendations of Central Vigilance Commission have not been accepted nor the same were binding on the disciplinary authority and as such the same were not accepted in their entirety. Even in the correspondence, it is revealed that initially the Central Vigilance Commission has recommended to remove the petitioner from the service forthwith but the same has not been accepted by the disciplinary authority and in reply, it was stated that recovery was yet to be enforced. Even after the second communication, order was not passed immediately by the disciplinary authority at the behest of the Central Vigilance Commission. As per the statutory provision and rules and regulations, it is only in consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission and not at their dictation the disciplinary authority has passed the order. The Court, therefore, is not inclined to accept the submission of the petitioner that the order is entirely based on the dictation or recommendations of the Central Vigilance Commission. Incidentally it has happened that the disciplinary authority's order and the recommendation of the Central Vigilance Commission are one and the same, but this fact by itself would not lead to the conclusion that the said order was passed at the behest of the Central Vigilance Commission.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - K A Puj - Full Document

Gurdeep Singh vs Punjab And Sind Bank And Ors on 19 September, 2018

In view of the judgment in the case of Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager (supra), the decision of the Bank could have been approved on merits, however, the two judgments in the cases of Nagaraj Shivaraj Karajgi (supra) and State Bank of India (supra) lay down the requisite procedure in such matters, and in the facts of this case, it will not be appropriate to depart from the dicta therein. On this yardstick alone, a part of the judgment of the High 17 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 13-10-2018 23:57:13 ::: CWP-14698-1994 18 ...
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Dhawan - Full Document

Jeetuwede vs Comm. Of Police on 17 December, 2015

39. Learned counsel for the applicant further relied upon the case of Nagraj Shivarao Karjagi vs. Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal and Another (1991) 3 SCC 219, to submit that any order passed by the disciplinary authority on dictation was void. In that case, it was held by the Supreme Court that the Central Government's powers, or the Central Vigilance Commission's recommendation, can only be to issue directions regarding matters of policy, which are of uniform nature. Such powers do not include giving directions to the Banks regarding award of set punishments to delinquent officers for different misconduct, as the quantum of punishment would depend on the nature of each case, and the gravity of the misconduct, and when a Bank officer had been compulsory retired, by (OA No.2360/2014) (19) mechanically accepting Central Vigilance Commission's recommendations, without considering whether the punishment was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct or not in the facts situation of the case, it was held that the order of compulsory retirement was vitiated by non application of mind, and hence the same was set aside. It was held that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are entitled to apply their mind in regard to the particular facts and circumstances of the case while deciding upon the punishment to be awarded.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.Tirupathy vs The District Collector on 24 March, 2006

41. In the present case also it is admitted by the respondents that it is based on the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department investigation the entire charges have been levelled. That alone cannot be a ground for the purpose of initiating disciplinary proceedings is the law laid down by the Apex Court in judgment in Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagii Vs. Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal and another reported in 1991 (3) SCC 219. The relevant portions of the judgment are as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 54 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

Union Bank Of India And Another vs Bishamber Dass Kayat on 12 March, 2026

In Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi vs. Syndicate Bank Head Officer, Manipal (supra), it was inter alia held that "The punishment to be imposed whether minor or major depends upon the nature of every case and the gravity of the misconduct proved. The authorities have to exercise their judicial discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. They cannot act under the dictation of the Central Vigilance Commission or of the Central Government. No third party like the Central Vigilance Commission or the Central Government 14 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2026 20:29:03 ::: LPA-601-2020 (O&M) -15- could dictate the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as to how they should exercise their power and what punishment they should impose on the delinquent officer. (See : De Smith's Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 4th edn., p. 309). The impugned directive of the Ministry of Finance, is therefore, wholly without jurisdiction, and plainly contrary to the statutory Regulations governing disciplinary matters."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next